Well, the hits keep on coming. In a NY Times editorial that could have come out of George Orwell’s 1984 novel, they are advocating the idea that thoughts and opinions, if they are politically incorrect, be exempt from constitutional protection.

Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department. He wrote and self-published a book in 2013 for his men’s bible study group, Who Told You That You Were Naked?, where he shared his faith in God and expressed his views on such things as sex, marriage, and life. It was his desire to use the book to cultivate a culture that brought glory to God, but it ended in his termination.

The reason? Well, according to the NY Times, the book contained “virulent anti-gay views.” And according to Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, the book contained homophobic language when it called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar, and inappropriate.” In reality, the part of the book being referenced is two paragraphs of the 162 page book. According to WXIA-TV, the specific passages of the book cited by The Ga Voice for their anti-gay stance are:

“Uncleanness — whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

“Naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body-temple and dishonor God.”

In other words, Mr. Cochran expressed orthodox Christian views.

Following a 30-day suspension to investigate any wrongdoing, the mayor gave three reasons—all of them technicalities—for terminating Mr. Cochran following his suspension:

Cochran failed to get approval for the book’s publication – Believe it or not, you have to get permission to write a book if you reference your position with the city. While the intent of such a ridiculous law may or may not be justified, the only mention of his position with the city is in the bio. There is no mention of his position in the context of the book, and he doesn’t imply directly or indirectly that the city endorses it.

Cochran commented publicly on his suspension after being told not to – Sounds questionable. In a TV interview following his suspension, he specifically stated that he was unable to comment until the investigation was completed.

Cochran exposed the city to possible discrimination lawsuits – This one is a real stretch, but it’s important to remember that, in the world of liberals, everyone is a victim of some sort.

Mr. Cochran believes that he was terminated “for no reason other than (his) Christian faith,” and since the investigation into his conduct found no evidence of discrimination, he probably has a case—I guess the city’s going to get that discrimination lawsuit after all.

Still, the NY Times is completely cool with the termination:

“It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”

Leadership, according to the Times, prevents public servants from holding potentially offensive positions, particularly when they aren’t politically correct, and it should deny them their constitutional rights.